HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 New Evolution Fitness Facility PA08-044AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 12, 2009
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 08-044 - New Evolution Fitness Facility
(Quasi Judicial) Conditional Use Permit request for a parking reduction
and off =site parking for a health club facility.
Report Prepared by Jamie L. Rojo, Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution denying a Conditional Use Permit request for a
parking reduction and off-site parking fora health club facility at
6705 Amador Plaza Road.
2) Written Statement.
3) Project Plans, dated received February 4, 2009.
4) Parking Study prepared by Omni Means, dated February 2009.
5) New Evolution Fitness Facility CUP - Parking Evaluation,
prepared by Jaimee Bourgeois, Public Works (Traffic), dated
April 2009.
6) Property Owner, Robert Enea's Proposed Safety Measures,
Memo dated April 20, 2009
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Vicinity Map
RECOMMENDATION: 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Receive Staff presentation;
Open the public hearing;
Take testimony from the Applicant and the public;
Close the public hearing and deliberate; and
Adopt Resolution denying a Conditional Use Permit request for
a parking reduction and off-site parking for a health club facility
at 6705 Amador Plaza Road.
??ws ?^ti?ssca • rc?
llE,JECT ."s?asau+?
The project site is located at the southeast corner of Dublin
Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road within Enea Plaza. The
proposed project would be located on a portion of Parcel A
(see Vicinity Map) within a vacant 28,455± square foot
building located at 6705 Amador Plaza Road. The building is
located within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The
property is zoned Planned Development (PD) and has a
General Plan Land Use Designation of Retail/Office. Access
to the project site is provided by two driveways on Amador
Plaza Road and one driveway on Dublin Boulevard.
Surrounding uses include general retail, automobile sales and a
restaurant use.
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
File PA 08-044
SITE ?'--------------
Parcel A
Page 1 of 9 ITEM NO.
G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-044 New Evolution Fitness CUP Parking Reduction\PC_5.12.09\PCSR 5_12 09.DOC
New Evolution Fitness Center is proposing to operate a multipurpose health club facility. The health club
facility would operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day. The health club facility would have up to 14
full time and part time employees, with a maximum of 10 employees working at any given time
(Attachment 2).
The proposed health club facility would be approximately 33,455 square feet and would include a 28,455
square foot ground floor and a 5,000 square foot mezzanine. The Applicant proposes to make tenant
improvements to the interior of the building. These improvements would include a new 5,000 square foot
mezzanine for additional workout areas, an aerobics training room, 3 specialty workout areas, a main
workout floor, men's and women's locker rooms, a kid's gym, a retail store, and offices (Attachment 3).
In addition, minor exterior improvements including door and window modifications have also been
proposed.
The project is located within a Plamied Development Zoning District (PA 06-008). A health club facility
is a permitted use type in the PD District. The Applicant, Mike Feeney, is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a parking reduction for an individual use and off-site parking for a health club facility.
Pursuant to Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance, approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning
Administrator is required for a parking reduction for an individual use and off-site parking. However, the
Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.128.040.E) permits the Zoning Admini Arator to refer hearing jurisdiction to
the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator has referred this item to the Planning Commission
for action.
ANALYSIS:
The Planned Development Zoning District (PD) for Enea Plaza has adopted parking standards for office
and retail uses which are as follows:
• Five spaces per 1,000 square feet for retail uses (511,000)
• Four spaces per 1,000 square feet for office uses (4/1,000)
There are no parking standards established in the PD for an eating and drinking establishment or health
club facility. Therefore, we refer back to the Zoning Ordinance for the applicable parking requirement.
Using the applicable parking standards, the tenants on Parcel A (bank, furniture and restaurant) require 96
spaces; the proposed health club would require 187 spaces. The combined demand for the existing
tenants on Parcel A (96 spaces) and the proposed health club (187 spz.ces) is 283 spaces.
There would be a deficiency of 110 parking spaces on Parcel A as shown in Table 1 below. Therefore,
the Applicant requested a Conditional Use Permit for a parking reduction for an individual use.
Table 1: On-Site Parking
Parking Spaces
Parking Spaces Provided on Parcel A 173
Required Parking Spaces 283
Deficient of Parkin Spaces -110
Page 2 of 9
Parking Reduction for an Individual Use
A parking reduction for an individual use was requested by the Applicant. In order to verify whether a
parking reduction for an individual use would be appropriate, a parking study was prepared by Omni
Means (Attachment 4). The parking study compared the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements for a
health club with the parking demands of comparable health clubs within the region.
Parking demand surveys were taken from two comparable health clubs in the region for analysis during
peak fitness and retail parking periods (Bally Fitness in Pleasant Hill and 24-Hour Fitness in Moraga).
The parking study concluded that the proposed health club would require 197 spaces during peak
operation times, ten spaces more than the Zoning Ordinance requirement for a health club. Therefore, the
Zoning Ordinance parking requirements for a health club is still applicable because the proposed use
would be generally consistent with the generic use type and associated parking standards established in the
Zoning Ordinance. Because a parking reduction for the health club could not be applied and Parcel A
would have a 110 space deficit, off=site parking was analyzed.
Off-Site Parking
As discussed above, the proposed health club would create an off-street parking deficiency of 110 spaces.
Enea Plaza consists of four parcels (A, B, C, D), as shown below in the Aerial Map. Parcels B, C, and D
have a total of 250 parking spaces available. The PD parking requirement for existing tenants on Parcels
B, C, and D is 257 spaces. As a result, Parcels B, C, and D are currently deficient by seven spaces and
cannot accommodate the overflow of health club peak hour parking demand of 110 parking spaces.
Aerial
,M
Parcel A (Proposed Site)
Therefore, peak parking demand surveys were taken between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Parcels B, C,
and D when the health club would peak. Based on the surveys, a total of 228 spaces were available on
Parcels B through D. As a result, a sufficient amount of parking would be available to accommodate the
overflow of health club peak hour parking demand of 110 parking spaces.
Although the excess parking demand could be accommodated on Parcels B, C, and D, if off-site parking
were to occur (in order to accommodate Parcel A's deficiency of 110 spaces), the amount of off-site
parking raises several health, safety, and welfare concerns, which are outlined as follows:
Page 3 of 9
• Recognizing that some of the vehicles parking off-site may belong to employees (up to 10 at one
time), the majority of the vehicles would belong to club patrons.
• The insufficient parking on Parcel A will result in the need for off site parking throughout the day. A
minimum of 110 vehicles would park off-site during health club peak hours of 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
equating to a minimum of 220 pedestrians crossing Amador Plaza Road during health club peak
hours, and over 700 pedestrians crossing Amador Plaza Road over the course of one day (see
Attachment 5). With such a large volume of pedestrians crossing Amador Plaza Road, Staff has the
following concerns:
• Allowing off-site parking would result in a large volume of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.
• Some patrons may try to cross mid-block across Amador Plaza Road.
• A signalized crossing is available at the Amador Plaza Road/St. Patrick Way intersection. The eastern
leg of the intersection is the I-680 freeway off-ramp, so motorists are often traveling at higher speeds
as they approach the intersection. Most motorists exiting the freeway turn right onto northbound
Amador Plaza Road and would travel through the pedestrian crosswalk in which the gym patrons
would be crossing. During the weekday evening peak hour, approximately 400 vehicles make this
right turn.
• The traffic signal operates with permissive phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches; that
is, St. Patrick Way and I-680 off-ramp traffic get a green light at the same time without protected left-
turn phases (i.e., left-turn arrows). Without protected left-tu-n phasing, motorists turning from
eastbound St. Patrick Way onto northbound Amador Plaza would travel through the pedestrian
crosswalk in which the gym patrons would be crossing.
Property Owner's Response to Safety Concerns
The property owner (Robert Enea) proposed to incorporate severE.l improvements into the project to
address the safety concerns raised by Staff (Attachment 6). Staff reviewed each of these measures and
has determined that the proposed measures would not adequately r,,-spond to the safety concerns. The
proposed improvements and the City's response to each are as follow 3:
Enea Proposal No. 1
• Construct an illuminated embedded flashing light system (embedded in all four sides of the
crosswalk) that would be automatically activated each time a pedestrian crosses the intersection at
St. Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Blvd.
City Response
• While in-roadway warning lights at crosswalks do have many valuable applications, they are
strictly prohibited for use at controlled crossings, such as at the signal-controlled intersection of
Amador Plaza Road and St. Patrick Way. This is stated in the California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices. This suggested improvement would therefore not be appropriate.
Enea Proposal No. 2
• Require each new member of the health club to review and sign, as part of their membership
agreement, an acknowledgment indicating that they will agree to park in only designated overflow
parking areas of the center and use only the crosswalk loca::ed at the intersection of St. Patrick
Way and Amador Plaza Road to access the Fitness Club from the overflow parking.
Page 4 of 9
City Response
• This proposal is consistent with Omni Means' recommendation to provide parking location
information to new members and has some merit. Mr. Enea proposes to extend the
acknowledgement to also cover crossing at the signalized intersection only. While having
members sign an acknowledgement may contribute toward their compliance with parking only in
the designated areas and crossing only at the signalized crossing, it does not guarantee that such
behavior will occur. Even with patrons parking in designated areas and crossing only at the
signal, this would still result in a large number of patrons having to cross Amador Plaza Road.
Enea Proposal No. 3
• Install signs in the parking areas further directing health club members where to and where not to
park in order to keep all overflow parking as close to the St. Patrick Way / Amador Plaza Road
intersection as possible. This in itself would deter people from walking across Amador Plaza
Road.
City Response
• Public Works agrees that signage would be beneficial in communicating the appropriate locations
to park. As stated above, concern remains about the number of patrons that would have to cross
Amador Plaza Road.
Enea Proposal No. 4
• Construct a barrier along the west side of Amador Plaza Road between the first and third driveway
entrances.
City Response
• Public Works does not recommend the installation of a barrier. This would not preclude patrons
from trying to cross at the driveway openings.
Enea Proposal No. 5
• Pick up about 8 to 9 parking spaces by allowing tandem employee parking in the current truck
loading area. Since employees working the same shift would come and go at the same time this
does not pose a significant inconvenience for employees.
City Response
• Although employees on the same shift generally arrive and leave at the same time, this type of
parking scenario would likely not be very efficient or even f,-asible. If shifts are staggered, then
there is no guarantee that employees of the same shift only would be parking tandem. More
likely, the first vehicle to arrive will be the first to leave, requiring other employees to leave in the
middle of their shift to move their vehicle.
Conditional Use Permit Findings
Sections 8.76.050.C require that all of the following Conditional Use Permit findings be made in order to
allow off-site parking:
A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service
facilities in the vicinity.
B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to
ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare.
Page 5 of 9
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related
structures being proposed.
F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance
standards established for the zoning district in which it is located.
G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans.
Staff has concluded that the Conditional Use Permit findings cannot be made due to health, safety, and
welfare concerns, which are described as follows:
A. The proposed health club facility use is not compatible with surrounding retail/office land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because:
o The size and intensity of the proposed health club use creates impacts to surrounding uses.
o Surrounding uses will be greatly impacted due to the high parking demand for the proposed
health club during peak hours resulting in parking deficiencies.
o Existing uses on Parcel A will be impacted in that there will be an insufficient amount of
parking spaces to accommodate both the health club and existing tenant parking demand
during peak health club hours on Parcel A.
o Existing tenants will be impacted by the significant healtrt club parking demand because there
are not designated parking spaces in Parcel A for existing i:enants.
o A signalized crossing is available at the Amador Plaza Road/St. Patrick Way intersection,
however, the eastern leg of the intersection is the I-680 freeway off-ramp, so motorists are
often traveling at higher speeds as they approach the intersection and most motorists exiting
the freeway turn right onto northbound Amador Plaza road and would travel through the
pedestrian crosswalk in which the gym patrons would be crossing which raises several safety
concerns with respect to pedestrian circulation.
B. The proposed use will adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity and will be detrimental to the public health, safety and N elfare because:
o The proposed health club will result in an overflow of parking and will impact adjacent uses in
that there are no designated parking spaces for existing tenants on Parcel A and a number of
customers and employees of the existing tenants on Par-,el A will have to park in adjacent
parcels due to the significant health club parking demand.
o Due to the existing Interstate-680 on and off ramps and high traffic volume on Amador Plaza
Road, there are significant safety concerns for the large number of pedestrians that will have to
cross from Parcels B, C, and D to Parcel A in order to access the health club facility and
existing tenants on Parcel A during health club peak hours.
o Allowing off-site parking will result in a large volume of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts due to
the necessity of pedestrians crossing Amador Plaza Road to reach Parcel A from Parcels B, C,
and D and vice versa.
o Assuming that the total parking duration for patrons is approximately 90 minutes, the expected
on-site parking deficit would result in 356 patrons parking off-site, which equates to 712
pedestrian crossings across Amador Plaza Road over the course of one day.
C. The proposed project will not be injurious to property or . mprovements in the neighborhood
because:
o The project site is not adequate to serve a health club facility of the proposed size and
intensity.
o Surrounding properties and businesses would be impacted by the overflow parking as a result
of the parking demand generated by the health club.
Page 6 of 9
D. There are not adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation and public utilities and
services to ensure that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare because:
o The lack of a safe pedestrian path of travel that connects directly from the sidewalk on Parcel
A to the proposed health club facility.
o The traffic signal operates with permissive phasing for the eastbound and westbound
approaches; that is, St. Patrick Way and I-680 off-ramp traffic get a green light at the same
time without protected left-turn phases (i.e., left-turn arrows), and without protected left-turn
phasing, motorists turning from eastbound St. Patrick Way onto northbound Amador Plaza
would travel through the pedestrian crosswalk in which the gym patrons would be crossing.
E. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type and intensity of the use being proposed
because:
o The project site is not adequate to support a health club facility of the proposed size and
intensity.
o There will be an insufficient amount of parking spaces for a health club use on Parcel A
resulting in a significant amount of cars having to pack off-site on Parcels B, C, and D
throughout various times of the day during weekdays.
o Amador Plaza Road intersects Parcel A from Parcels B, C, and D which presents significant
traffic and pedestrian safety concerns for pedestrians that will have to cross from Parcels B, C
and D in order to access the proposed health club facility on Parcel A.
o There is not direct pedestrian access that connects from the sidewalk on Parcel A to the
proposed health club facility for those persons parking and crossing over from Parcels B, C,
and D.
o Some patrons that park off-site may try to cross mid-block across Amador Plaza Road in order
to access Parcel A.
F. The proposed use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, and
performance standards established for the PD Zoning District because:
o There will be an insufficient amount of parking spaces as required by the PD Zoning for the
existing and proposed uses on Parcel A.
o The necessary requirements to allow for a shared parki ig reduction and off-site parking as
stated in Chapter 8.76, Section 8.76.050.C. and E, of tl e City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
cannot be met for this project.
o There will be a parking deficit on Parcel A throughout various times of the day and overflow
parking from the proposed health club use will impact adjacent uses.
G. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit is not consistent wi,Fh the General Plan because:
o A health club facility is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of
Retail/Office. I
o The size and intensity of the proposed health club facility exceeds the capacity of the subject
property.
o There will be an insufficient amount of parking spaces for a health club use of the proposed
size and intensity on Parcel A resulting in a significant anount of cars having to park off-site
on Parcels B, C, and D.
o The amount of off-site parking onto Parcels B, C, and I) creates health, safety, and welfare
concerns that are not consistent with the intent of the General Plan.
Page 7 of 9
CONCLUSION:
A health club is a permitted use type. However, the size of the proposed facility requires more parking
than is available on-site. Therefore, the Applicant requested a parking reduction for an individual use and
off-site parking. The Omni-Means parking study has concluded that there will be a parking deficiency of
110 spaces on Parcel A for the proposed health club. Although Parcel A's deficiency of 110 spaces could
be accommodated on Parcels B, C, and D, the amount of off-site parking raises several health, safety, and
welfare concerns, and Staff believes the Conditional Use Permit findings cannot be made in order to
recommend approval.
NOTICING:
In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. A public notice was also published in the Valley
Times and posted at several locations throughout the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Pursuant to Article 18, Statutory Exemptions, Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects in which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public
hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Clcse the public hearing and deliberate;
and 5) Adopt Resolution denying a Conditional Use Permit request for a parking reduction and off-site
parking for a health club facility at 6705 Amador Plaza Road.
Page 8 of 9
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
SURROUNDING USES:
Robert S. Enea
St. Michael Investments LP
190 Hartz Avenue Suite 260
Danville CA, 94526
Mike Feeney
New Evolution Fitness Co.
3595 Mount Diablo Boulevard
Lafayette CA, 94549
6705 Amador Plaza Road (APN 941-1500-038-03)
Retail/Office
Planned Development (FA 06-008)
Pursuant to Article 18, Statutory Exemptions, Section 15270
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects in which a
public agency rejects or disapproves.
GENERAL PLAN CURRENT USE OF
LOCATION ZONING LAND USE PROPERTY
Project Site Planned Development il/Off
R
t r
k
R
t
il
R
t
nt
B
ice
e
a an
,
e
a
,
es
au
,
a
Parcel A (PD)
North PD Retail/Office Grocery Store, Retail
Retail, Office,
South PD Retail/Office Automobile Sales
East -- -- I-680
West PD Retail/Office Retail, Office
1231669.1
Page 9 of 9